07-28-2010, 08:30 PM
[quote name='Husky' date='25 July 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1280040375' post='107612']
2. About Nirguna Brahman
Upanishads IIRC speak on the same topic too. Brahman without form or attributes is nirguna, and when it has form - being saguna - it is the Hindu Gods. Many Gods - in the various texts of Rishis and other Gods - are declared the very Brahman and hence as being the very form of Brahman.
Both are a reality: the Brahman - the Supreme Ultimate, the Absolute Reality - is Nirguna and can and does (of its own accord) assume a plurality of individual forms which makes it Saguna. Just like the Tao. People who deny one of these and insist solely on the other are in denial.
Also, the well-known paths in Vedaanta (Advaitam to Dvaitam) are consistent with the Agamic paths too. And that's as to be expected, as they're all part of the same religion (Hindoooism), so it's no surprise that they speak of the same things and keep repeating, reinforcing and confirming each other.
And also this:
Again, the notion you're referring to is not any origina
3. Buddhism
No. Such identification is absolutely wrong. Buddhism's Void is fundamentally different from Brahman. Things could not be more opposite.
- In Hindu religion, the ultimate reality is ParaBrahman - which is the All/the Everything, the Absolute Reality. Liberation in Hindu religion is realisation of/oneness with the Only Real (which exists, or rather which IS, as the Gita states), and which is that which permeates everything in existence and beyond: i.e. the Grand Spirit (the paramapuruSha). It is both the source of and sustenance of everything, and when all of creation is withdrawn/retracted again, it remains - complete, as ever.
Anyway, Hindu Dharma's reality is the Brahman, the Supreme Ultimate All, the Everything.
Bauddha Dharma and Hindu Dharmic religion are saying the very opposite: because Nothing is NOT the same as Everything. The All is NOT the same as the Void. Realising the very real Absolute Reality is NOT the same as realising the essentially unreal nature of absolutely everything.
Buddhism denies the All of Hindu religion. It denies the existence/reality of the Absolute Reality, having replaced it with Nothing. It consequently denies everything in Hindu (and Taoist, Hellenistic, etc) religion.
Shankaracharya was not at all peddling Buddhism, since he was only repeating the established, traditional views of Hindu religion (as are condensed in Vedaanta texts). Where Shankara appears to have diverged with some established Hindu traditional views of Advaitam, it was - going by very vague memory - only in the nature of reality of Maya and/or Ignorance. The Parabrahman for Shankara BP was very much an absolute reality, as it has always been for all Hindus. And this is why the Gods are very much a known reality for him too, something he could not - and would not and hence did not - deny. He is very much a Hindoo.
Vedaantic texts do *not* presage Buddhism, despite confused uppity Buddhist statements to the contrary. The Upanishads restate (some important elements in) the Vedam, and the Agamas run in parallel and are likewise connected to the Vedam too. All other *ancient*, established Hindu literature merely adds to the same.
4. "Symbolism"
Whatever.
But these claimants are *not* in line with Shankara, regardless of their claims.
Traditional followers of Shankara are nothing like those moderns who deny his Gods (and the meaning and importance the Hindu Gods have to him), even as the moderns repeat "aham brahmaasmi" to themselves without comprehension to lecture others online.
And I don't understand the sort of self-confusiosos who declare that Advaitam is somehow magically, miraculously separate from or even contradicting 'Theism'/itself (let alone that it is somehow "closer to Buddhism" - or Jainism - of all impossible things) - it must be a great miracle indeed that must have transpired which allows any to deny what is intrinsically 'Theist'. Or those who say that Saguna contradicts Nirguna Brahman - imagining that the Nirguna is somehow mutual exclusive with Saguna <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />, when it so obviously is not. Clearly they can't compute one half of Hindoo religion. That's one natural aspect of this mysterious Parabrahman that they can't "get".
Actually, it'
5. OMGs it is never-ending:
(And he also composed to Saraswati and from memory to Brihaspati, etc.) Am ignoring the literal meaning of Eternal which implies time, since time does not exist in that which is Beyond; time is part of creation alone -
But the Gods teach us of themselves. And the forms of the Gods in creation are their natural, own forms, just as their names and mantras are their own. What happens when creation dissolves? It's whatever happens. But the Gods are real. And Hindu texts explain how Lalita and Shiva exist past the dissolution, just as Krishna too confirms his permanence, etc. This is why one can find various ancient traditional established Hindu views on Vedaantic texts reiterated: those existing Hindu paths/views can and do all find vindication for their individual positions in the same texts.
But why people have to beat themselves up over a question that can only be faced/answered conclusively after death and Moksha is beyond me. Why can't people just live while alive. The Real Gods exist and can be known in life itself.
My next post here will be on missionising/proselytising.
[/quote]
You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.
To deny that Brahman is a person who is the source of all other persons ,mean you minimize the saguna brahman aspect.No real personal absolute just relative persons subordinate to an impersonal nirguna brahman.
The world as maya was the teaching of Shankara teacher,but Shankara has a more subtle approach;he postulate that are 3 types of reality depending from which point of view you see things.
3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.
Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing,just that saguna may have also the meaning of limited temporary qualities ,while para refer specifically to infinite transcendent qualities.Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).
Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).
4.Yes,the mimamsa school defeated the buddhism not vedanta.Buddhism was already in decline in Shankara time.After Shankara,vedanta become the dominant school and integrated mimamsa in its doctrine.
5.I refer to eternity as unlimited time,not as absence of time.Any attribute may have a corespondent in the Transcendent ,lets say a super-time.This neo-platonist point about the eternity as absence of time doesn't impress me.
We are ever to exist and maybe that's the difference from buddhism (for them everything is temporary).The dissolution refers mostly at the material universes.The game end but the players are still alive.
2. About Nirguna Brahman
Upanishads IIRC speak on the same topic too. Brahman without form or attributes is nirguna, and when it has form - being saguna - it is the Hindu Gods. Many Gods - in the various texts of Rishis and other Gods - are declared the very Brahman and hence as being the very form of Brahman.
Both are a reality: the Brahman - the Supreme Ultimate, the Absolute Reality - is Nirguna and can and does (of its own accord) assume a plurality of individual forms which makes it Saguna. Just like the Tao. People who deny one of these and insist solely on the other are in denial.
Also, the well-known paths in Vedaanta (Advaitam to Dvaitam) are consistent with the Agamic paths too. And that's as to be expected, as they're all part of the same religion (Hindoooism), so it's no surprise that they speak of the same things and keep repeating, reinforcing and confirming each other.
And also this:
Again, the notion you're referring to is not any origina
3. Buddhism
No. Such identification is absolutely wrong. Buddhism's Void is fundamentally different from Brahman. Things could not be more opposite.
- In Hindu religion, the ultimate reality is ParaBrahman - which is the All/the Everything, the Absolute Reality. Liberation in Hindu religion is realisation of/oneness with the Only Real (which exists, or rather which IS, as the Gita states), and which is that which permeates everything in existence and beyond: i.e. the Grand Spirit (the paramapuruSha). It is both the source of and sustenance of everything, and when all of creation is withdrawn/retracted again, it remains - complete, as ever.
Anyway, Hindu Dharma's reality is the Brahman, the Supreme Ultimate All, the Everything.
Bauddha Dharma and Hindu Dharmic religion are saying the very opposite: because Nothing is NOT the same as Everything. The All is NOT the same as the Void. Realising the very real Absolute Reality is NOT the same as realising the essentially unreal nature of absolutely everything.
Buddhism denies the All of Hindu religion. It denies the existence/reality of the Absolute Reality, having replaced it with Nothing. It consequently denies everything in Hindu (and Taoist, Hellenistic, etc) religion.
Shankaracharya was not at all peddling Buddhism, since he was only repeating the established, traditional views of Hindu religion (as are condensed in Vedaanta texts). Where Shankara appears to have diverged with some established Hindu traditional views of Advaitam, it was - going by very vague memory - only in the nature of reality of Maya and/or Ignorance. The Parabrahman for Shankara BP was very much an absolute reality, as it has always been for all Hindus. And this is why the Gods are very much a known reality for him too, something he could not - and would not and hence did not - deny. He is very much a Hindoo.
Vedaantic texts do *not* presage Buddhism, despite confused uppity Buddhist statements to the contrary. The Upanishads restate (some important elements in) the Vedam, and the Agamas run in parallel and are likewise connected to the Vedam too. All other *ancient*, established Hindu literature merely adds to the same.
4. "Symbolism"
Whatever.
But these claimants are *not* in line with Shankara, regardless of their claims.
Traditional followers of Shankara are nothing like those moderns who deny his Gods (and the meaning and importance the Hindu Gods have to him), even as the moderns repeat "aham brahmaasmi" to themselves without comprehension to lecture others online.
And I don't understand the sort of self-confusiosos who declare that Advaitam is somehow magically, miraculously separate from or even contradicting 'Theism'/itself (let alone that it is somehow "closer to Buddhism" - or Jainism - of all impossible things) - it must be a great miracle indeed that must have transpired which allows any to deny what is intrinsically 'Theist'. Or those who say that Saguna contradicts Nirguna Brahman - imagining that the Nirguna is somehow mutual exclusive with Saguna <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />, when it so obviously is not. Clearly they can't compute one half of Hindoo religion. That's one natural aspect of this mysterious Parabrahman that they can't "get".
Actually, it'
5. OMGs it is never-ending:
(And he also composed to Saraswati and from memory to Brihaspati, etc.) Am ignoring the literal meaning of Eternal which implies time, since time does not exist in that which is Beyond; time is part of creation alone -
But the Gods teach us of themselves. And the forms of the Gods in creation are their natural, own forms, just as their names and mantras are their own. What happens when creation dissolves? It's whatever happens. But the Gods are real. And Hindu texts explain how Lalita and Shiva exist past the dissolution, just as Krishna too confirms his permanence, etc. This is why one can find various ancient traditional established Hindu views on Vedaantic texts reiterated: those existing Hindu paths/views can and do all find vindication for their individual positions in the same texts.
But why people have to beat themselves up over a question that can only be faced/answered conclusively after death and Moksha is beyond me. Why can't people just live while alive. The Real Gods exist and can be known in life itself.
My next post here will be on missionising/proselytising.
[/quote]
You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.
To deny that Brahman is a person who is the source of all other persons ,mean you minimize the saguna brahman aspect.No real personal absolute just relative persons subordinate to an impersonal nirguna brahman.
The world as maya was the teaching of Shankara teacher,but Shankara has a more subtle approach;he postulate that are 3 types of reality depending from which point of view you see things.
3.No.Nirvana doesn't mean nothing but is mean more like the notion of Beyond ,not existence,not non-existence,just like Shankara proposed that nirguna is.
Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing,just that saguna may have also the meaning of limited temporary qualities ,while para refer specifically to infinite transcendent qualities.Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).
Buddhist monks describe the Upanishads as teaching bheda-abheda view of Brahman,that before Shankara suggest that abheda(oneness,unmanifest) is more important then bheda(diference,manifest).
4.Yes,the mimamsa school defeated the buddhism not vedanta.Buddhism was already in decline in Shankara time.After Shankara,vedanta become the dominant school and integrated mimamsa in its doctrine.
5.I refer to eternity as unlimited time,not as absence of time.Any attribute may have a corespondent in the Transcendent ,lets say a super-time.This neo-platonist point about the eternity as absence of time doesn't impress me.
We are ever to exist and maybe that's the difference from buddhism (for them everything is temporary).The dissolution refers mostly at the material universes.The game end but the players are still alive.